The part I am bothered by is "I respect you less..."
I was raised to think I was better than people who weren't as intelligent as I was. For years I thought that there was nothing wrong with that and it was only natural.
But now I see that that was one of the most toxic aspects of my upbringing. As much as I value my family's focus on education, the attitude that people who have come to different conclusions than me are not to be respected has led me to hurt others and causes me to hurt myself through self-judgment and criticism. After all, if stupid people don't deserve respect if I do something stupid I must not deserve it either.
Judgment based on perceived intellect is now something that I find offensive to a certain extent. I think it's a waste of time and I think it's hurtful rather than helpful.
I think it is important to point out the hypocrisies in our culture - Elvis guy versus Jesus guy (although I'm not sure if I'd say Jesus guy is "generally" respected as being trustworthy) - one can do that without saying the equivalent of "I respect you less..." for it. And I think one can also do it more successfully, building bridges along the way rather than blowing them up.
I also think they fail the subtlety of thought test. Both of them tend to rail against "religion" in general as if the institution were monolithic rather than composed of millions of individuals many of whom do a great deal of good and most of whom do no harm. It's also unsubtle in that religion is viewed as bad in and of itself rather than as one social instrument that may be used for ill. It's like saying that all government is bad because of the evils committed by governments throughout the ages. Now anarchists do argue this to a certain extent and some points can be made in favor of that argument, but it's far from a subtle argument, and it confuses the tool with the people wielding it.
Many atrocities have been and are committed in the name of or as a result of science as well (human medical experiments on unwitting/captive subjects, animal experimentation, the atomic bomb) but that doesn't mean science is bad.
Anyway... We do have disagreements April, but they are far less than you think they are. The main disagreement I have with all of this is whether it's worthwhile to scorn or think less of religion or religious people.
I didn't think it was right when they told me I was going to hell in the 6th grade locker room, but I also don't think it's right to tell them they are idiots for telling me that. What good does that do? How does that convince one person that science is their friend or that we all have something in common and should love each other?
I could see that Dawkins and Harris might cause people to think about these issues who haven't before, and that is a good thing, though I wonder how much the good is lessened by the superior attitude expressed in their works.
And I am glad that atheists feel they have a voice in places where they have been discriminated against. But I question whether Dawkins and Harris provide a voice which will reach across the divide to engage new people or whether they are primarily alienating and will create further negative energy.
I don't have a problem with atheists or people being atheists. I do have a problem with arrogance and negativity.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-02-10 03:44 am (UTC)I was raised to think I was better than people who weren't as intelligent as I was. For years I thought that there was nothing wrong with that and it was only natural.
But now I see that that was one of the most toxic aspects of my upbringing. As much as I value my family's focus on education, the attitude that people who have come to different conclusions than me are not to be respected has led me to hurt others and causes me to hurt myself through self-judgment and criticism. After all, if stupid people don't deserve respect if I do something stupid I must not deserve it either.
Judgment based on perceived intellect is now something that I find offensive to a certain extent. I think it's a waste of time and I think it's hurtful rather than helpful.
I think it is important to point out the hypocrisies in our culture - Elvis guy versus Jesus guy (although I'm not sure if I'd say Jesus guy is "generally" respected as being trustworthy) - one can do that without saying the equivalent of "I respect you less..." for it. And I think one can also do it more successfully, building bridges along the way rather than blowing them up.
I also think they fail the subtlety of thought test. Both of them tend to rail against "religion" in general as if the institution were monolithic rather than composed of millions of individuals many of whom do a great deal of good and most of whom do no harm. It's also unsubtle in that religion is viewed as bad in and of itself rather than as one social instrument that may be used for ill. It's like saying that all government is bad because of the evils committed by governments throughout the ages. Now anarchists do argue this to a certain extent and some points can be made in favor of that argument, but it's far from a subtle argument, and it confuses the tool with the people wielding it.
Many atrocities have been and are committed in the name of or as a result of science as well (human medical experiments on unwitting/captive subjects, animal experimentation, the atomic bomb) but that doesn't mean science is bad.
Anyway... We do have disagreements April, but they are far less than you think they are. The main disagreement I have with all of this is whether it's worthwhile to scorn or think less of religion or religious people.
I didn't think it was right when they told me I was going to hell in the 6th grade locker room, but I also don't think it's right to tell them they are idiots for telling me that. What good does that do? How does that convince one person that science is their friend or that we all have something in common and should love each other?
I could see that Dawkins and Harris might cause people to think about these issues who haven't before, and that is a good thing, though I wonder how much the good is lessened by the superior attitude expressed in their works.
And I am glad that atheists feel they have a voice in places where they have been discriminated against. But I question whether Dawkins and Harris provide a voice which will reach across the divide to engage new people or whether they are primarily alienating and will create further negative energy.
I don't have a problem with atheists or people being atheists. I do have a problem with arrogance and negativity.